Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Intergovernmental topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners push for caseload-based share in judicial-circuit funding; staff to model alternatives
Summary
Board members debated a multi-county judicial-funding proposal and recommended using court caseloads (ideally a three-year average) rather than population to apportion costs; staff will run alternative calculations and seek termination/exit language in the agreement.
Commissioners reviewed a proposed multi-county agreement to share judicial-circuit costs and debated whether county contributions should be based on population or on actual caseload. One commissioner said he had “come full circle and think that basing it on caseload is probably the fair thing to do,” and others urged the use of multi-year averages to avoid volatility.
Members also raised concerns about the contract’s lack of clear definitions for caseload and the absence of exit or termination language that would allow a county to withdraw without the approval of a majority of participating counties. Staff committed to modeling alternative formulas (separate tallies for superior, juvenile and other court types) and to circulate numbers for commissioners to review before the county signs any agreement.
